Friday, June 02, 2006

Front Porch Sittin'

A week ago, Bree and I were hanging out on her front porch, watching the one squad car on duty drive past every ten minutes. This is something we do practically every other night now that it is warmer. But this night was interesting, as she asked me what decade I would like to have lived in. This of course turned into an indepth and interesting conversation.

Her answer was the Roaring 20's, which didn't really surprise me, as she has an addiction of collecting hats and haircombs from that time, and there is no doubt in my mind that she would have been one of the most provocative Flappers if she had lived during that time. Although she would never have colored her blonde hair black, I could see her thriving in the speakeasys, participating in dance marathons, and fighting for women's right to vote. I'm sure I would be right there next to her, the salt and pepper shakers that we are. And I am sure with our personalities, we would be causing trouble. Or the cause of it.

Why they called it bootlegging.

The last hoorah before the Great Depression, the 1920's was a time of economic prosperity...full of good music, gangsters, bootlegging, and influential inventors and writers. I am sure if I had been around during this time, I would have been a songbird. Well, Bree and I would probably be an act.

My answer to this I made too difficult, as I of course wanted to make sure I got to choose what social and economic position I was in, as there were some decades that I would not have wanted to be poor. Like anyone wants to be poor. The Roaring 20's would be ok, but I think I would have loved to be in an era where horses were the primary transportation. Like the Victorian Era, or perhaps during the medieval period. Although, I doubt my personality would have been appreciated then. I think I would have made an awesome gun-slinging cowgirl too... but honestly I would just want to have Bree as my friend. No matter the decade.

So what decade would you have liked to live in? Any particular reason why?

26 Comments:

Anonymous said...

If you're talking about decades of the twentieth century I'd have to be bad here and say the late sixtie and early seventies before the aids epidemic hit.Soley because I am truly evil and would have loved to delve into all that free love with no consquential death or disease.

18th century England. Just becuase Mr.Darcy was roaming the hills! :)But I am not sure I would like it for an entire life. Just for a coupel of months would be fine. Seeing a drawing room fro the inside, learn French and play the piano. Go for walks and swoon. Wear long white gloves and spend the day on sowing lace to dresses. Ok...maybe three weeks!

If we are talking about 20th century then I would have to pick the 40s. After all we do call that our greatest generation. I think in the 40s we saw the best of America and we saw what a war effort truly is.

If it's at any time period, I would have to pick the 1770s. As a historian, I toil with what America could have looked liked in its infancy. I think there is so much that goes on today that our Founding Fathers could never have possibly predicted. Then we could really see what the framer's intentions actually were. And of course, like I always do, I would be asking a million questions. Plus I would want to meet Sam Adams and have him teach me how to brew that beer.

Seriously- I'd pick 30 AD so I could meet Jesus and get some things straight .

Not so seriously- the 50's... Cool cars, dappper dan hair, a comb in the back pocket always handy, girls in poodle skirts and ponytails, fist fights where you don't have to wrry about shot, stabbed, or jumped, swing dancing, nights at the hop, and did i mention girls in poodle skirts?

I guess it depends on what gender I was if I lived in a different era.Since I can only imagine experiencing life as a woman I must say I wouldn't want to be living in any other time than I am now. If I could live in another era with the autonomy of a man, I would probably pick the Renaissance time in Europe. A time of very exciting scientific and artistic growth and discovery.

Coop and Shayna, I fear that you would have discovered that the "free love" of the 60s had plenty of disease and death associated with it, even without AIDS.

Jake, and what if you discovered that the real Jesus of Nazareth was nothing like his Gospel advertising? That he actually resembled someone like David Koresh? (Not an entirely idle speculation, or one original with me.)

I think most of us who know only the era of modern medicine, who travelled backwards in time (especially before the 1940s when penicillin became available, or 1866, when the demonstration of the link between bacteria and disease was made) would run, not walk, back to the present at the earliest possible moment. I know I would.

Dammit Cooper! Why'd you have to go get mine! Although the free love doesn't appeal that much to me... more the hippy, free and unabashed ways, the fashion, the philosophy and San Francisco... they would suit me to a tee!

But I am pretty happy with my life in this decade... as for the state of society and our planet... *sigh* 9/11 destroyed my spirit in many ways.

I guess if I couldn't go back and help my ancestors in the Netherland's War of Independence from Spain in the 16th Century I would want to stay in this decade.

Best medicine, food, computers, music, microbrews and air conditioning (Cowgirl, I was just down at Fort Sam Houston - "Home of the Combat Medic" - nice place, great people, too hoot.)

I think that after having been throughout the Panjshir Valley and the spurs of the Hindu Ksuh with the 20 somethings of this generation, we may have to revise the "Greatest Generation" tag. I feel lucky to be part of the hisotry this decade is making.

I'd say either the 20s or the 60s, for the reasons Bree and Cooper put forth, respectively. I'd lean to the ladder, because in that case I'd get the oppertunity to see the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Janice Joplin, a young Bob Dylam and the first incarnation of Cream.

Alternately, some decade in the future where we've found a real solution to the shit we're in now, cured all STDs, escaped all forms of Puritanism, and oh yeah, finally figured out as a society that no matter which group of people you decide you hate, or whichever fucked-up rationale you put forth to justify it, you're still a shithead.

O'ceallaigh- Well, then I suppose things would be different. However, of the three possibilities of who Jesus was (God, a liar, or a crazy man) I'd say crazy man, like David Koresh, would be the least likely given his profound words, and incredible deeds. Moreover though I'm with C.S. Lewis on who this man was...

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who is merely a man and said the sort of things that Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic- on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

C. S. Lewis was a powerful writer and thinker. But I fear, given the reading I've done, I think Muhammed (who recognized the status of Jesus as a great divine, but denied his Sonship as being inconsistent with the idea that God is One) is closer to being right than is Lewis.

To say more in this space would constitute a hijacking. I'll have to blog. I've posted a couple that you might find relevant here and here.